This is more of a history and social lesson than a film and perhaps that is what Godard intended. There is no real plot or narrative to speak of, but rather various scenes showing a group of French students in their lair of socialism and Communism as they discuss and digest the many teachings and ideas from Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Marx. One thing I still don't understand about Godard is if he is advocating these beliefs or against them. Still, the film is very well-made with the primary actors giving very believable performances and Godard still messing with the basic fundamentals of film making. There is one great scene that is an unbroken shot of what must be at least 7 or 8 minutes in length. It takes place on a train passing through Paris and shows Anne Wiazmesky talking to a French politician about the cons and pros of revolution and violence. It is interesting to listen to as well as watch. This film is the same way and so is this director, though certainly not for everyone.

Well, it is a great Goddard. Touches in a subject that is presently seen in Brasil. The fall of the so called "political last hope", the left wing. What the french and Chinese felt 30 or 40 some years ago is now reflecting within our delayed and useless democracy. By the way, democracy does not exist, and never did anywhere, period. Anyway, the film's form, symbolisms and dialogs (which are great) are deliberately constructed to catch the intellectualized audience attention. Why? First, it's Goddard. Second, he is showing his frustration towards a society in the turn of tides. Goddard knows his generation has failed, like many did, and the future is in the hands of clueless people who may not even know what their ideals were. There are many conflicts present in the film, and like any transition period in life conflicts will occur with various opinions about the same subject; however, use to have one symbolic goal, from now on the results will create individual solutions, and instead of uniting people they will actually divide us all and distract us from the importance of communion. The "needing" of one another as a society will be incorporated into peoples lives as a simple need to succeed in a capitalistic world where any person becomes replaceable and without self identity. This is what Goddard, back in 68, was trying to tell us. Did he accomplished that? Well, look at how many people care to vote or comment on this movie and how many did on Star Wars. The shrinking importance of subject in films shows us the importance of visual effects, how's that for a comparison? Goddard knew it all the time what was to come.

In Japan, La Choise was put on the market as DVD in last year. Although I obtained to view it after some hesitation, the work by Godard in 1967 was brought to very beautiful digitized pictures. About four decades ago, I remembered having seen the poster that was stuck on the wall filled in the graffiti of a political slogan in the movie research club room of an university, although I did not view this work itself. In the poster, Anne Wiazemsky of makeup of Red Guard, wearing the Mao cap and the Mao jacket, hanged up Little Red Book highly with the right hand. The background of the poster was cranberry red. In this movie, the color of white and red is used for symmetry as metaphor. Former suggests bourgeois communism in Western countries, and latter suggests Maoism.A movie starts in the white mansion house in the Paris suburbs. To study Maoism, the five women and men congregate to live a communal life in residence with a white interior and exterior wall that elaborated the intention on the furniture of a bourgeois hobby. We scoped out the setting for Beijing Weekly Report, Mao cap, and much Little Red Book. Those movie property emboss petite bourgeois radicalism. Although Godard was disgusted with the bourgeois Western communism, zeitgeist at the time shared a similar perspective between the young intelligentsia and students having the leftist ideology of Western Europe. The energy in such a spirit of the age was committed to the Maoism, and praised the Cultural Revolution. In Western countries, it was only catastrophe and It is few persons' sacrifice and ended. When on the train Anne Wiazemsky and Professor Francis Jeanson debate the revolution, she sits down toward a direction of movement against the background of the train window, but he sits down conversely. We know the history that the train goes to the destination of violence, destruction, and genocide. Although Godard in those days must have sat down on the same seat of Anne, of course, probably, he must have got off without going to the terminal station. The scene of the conversation in that train suggests ambivalence of Godard himself. In 1968 of the next year when this film-making was done, we encountered The Paris May Revolution. It passed away after febrile delirium. Almost all young intelligentsia and students of those days in the Western countries as well as Godard must have got off. I did so.When about four decades have passed away, we now know The Cultural Revolution in China as a struggle for power at Beijing Zhongnanhai, Vietnam War as a southing to occupy by North Vietnam, a genocide in The Cultural Revolution in China, a genocide by the Pol Pot Administration of Maoism, and also collapse of communism itself. I can now view this movie calmly.

La Chinoise shows the lives of students living in a "Maoist Collective" which was actually a rather bourgeois borrowed apartment. The film shows the contradiction between their lives and their political commitment. In a very real way it it is an example of Maoist criticism/self-criticism. The film also explores the impossiblity of communication between people. It is based on a true story!